I'm curious

[PBzeer]

It occurs to me, that given the justification for national healthcare, why there isn't a call for the government provision of food. After all, food is more basic to life than healthcare. No food, no need for healthcare. One might think, given the moral imperative claimed for providing healthcare to those able to provide it for themselves, there would be an equal, if not greater imperative, to provide food to those able to provide it for themselves. Especially given the rising cost of food prices.

Perhaps some of our enthusiastic social democrats could explain how the principle for providing one is different from providing the other?

[pdqaltair]

a. We do, through our social safety net. Unfortunately, you have to be poor to apply.

b. The Committee for Unamerican Activities has a file on you.

[PBzeer]

You forgot, I said, "to those able to provide it for themselves.

I can understand a "safety net". I can support a safety net, as long as it's just a net, and not a cocoon. What I don't get, is why should government supply anything to those able to supply it themselves?

(I assume sarcasm, but answered as if it wasn't)

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

(I assume sarcasm, but answered as if it wasn't)

Yes. I generally avoid sarcasm in posts; it is too prone to misinterpretation. In this case, you get it and we seem to agree.

The concept of a safety net is something as a nation we agree on. It's drawing the lines that is so difficult. Back on-topic....

As affordable heath care legislation moves forward, it will be interesting to see where the courts stand: shades of FDR? I don't know.

[CrazyRu]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

It occurs to me, that given the justification for national healthcare, why there isn't a call for the government provision of food.

Hm, I thought that our goverment already covered the food, since 1939, isn't it?
Something like 45+ millions americans are getting food stamps.

[jackdale]

As an occasional vistor to the US I have long noticed that US food prices are significantly lower.

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization" via U.S. farm bills. These bills date back to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support. A Canadian report claimed that for every dollar U.S. farmers earn, 62 cents comes from some form of government, with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion.

Not really free food, but getting there.

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As an occasional vistor to the US I have long noticed that US food prices are significantly lower.



Not really free food, but getting there.

ya, jack there's truth in that. but a lot of those subsidies are for ethanol. that stuff that takes more energy to create than it makes. a triple negative?....

but as the price we have to pay for fuel rises, so does the price of food. if fuel prices were lower in canada, i'd be willing to bet your food prices would be lower also. they don't make solar powered combines just yet......

[BentSailor]

Shorter ssneade: I hear your point, jackdale, and shall henceforth ignore it

For what it is worth, I don't know many nations that don't try subsidising their local horticultural industry. Then again, I'm not arguing against government interference with market forces. I am, in point of fact, on record as believing that is part of a government's responsibilities where it continues to benefit citizens and maintains a nations ability to provide food for it's citizens in emergencies (not as exciting as "energy security", but probably more important).

[PBzeer]

What does the PRICE of food have to do with it?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

For what it is worth, I don't know many nations that don't try subsidising their local horticultural industry.

Proving nothing about either the validity or the morality of subsidies.

Then again, I'm not arguing against government interference with market forces. I am, in point of fact, on record as believing that is part of a government's responsibilities where it continues to benefit citizens and maintains a nations ability to provide food for it's citizens in emergencies (not as exciting as "energy security", but probably more important).

Those emergencies tend to be a result of government intervention. Not jut in food but, for now at least, in biofuels.

And to remind you: the government confiscates wealth from one sector and gives to another, interfering in the markets of both -- usually with deleterious effects on both. That's in addition to the immorality of treating one sector as the object of sacrifice of the other.